Ziarid Mardawidj is known, as outstanding personage in tenth century, who comes up with the Idea of reviving the Sassanian kingdom. He has been accused of promoting the return of religion and kingdom of Iran back to Sasanian period, by Abbasian Caliphate courts historians. Despite many contradictory remarks, it is not clear, what were the motives which compelled Mardawidj to think of such an attempt. The objective of this article is to investigate little existing data, in an explanatory-analytic method and find the possible reasons for such a conduct by Mardawij. Here it is found that, in the final five months of his reign, Mardawidj began to oppose the Caliphate although he had a close connection with Abbassian Caliphate, similar to other Istila amirs. Then, as a manner of acquisition of legitimacy, he introduced the idea of revival of Sassanid kingdom, in order to compensate for the loss of his political legitimacy.

In the second half of the fifth century AH, The political and economic crises in the Fatimid KHALIFAT and their conflicts with the Seljuks in Sham led to the establishment of local governments in the region. The most prominent of these governments was the Banu Ammar state government in Tripoli. Banu Ammar governors whose policies were more efficient than the Fatimids' and the Seljuks' managed to maintain their independency and establish their self-government. Banu Ammar's ten-year resistance to the Crusaders was achieved by virtue of their tolerant policies. Finally, the lack of Muslim governments' support for Banu Ammar, along with internal rebellions in Tripoli led to the fall of the city against the Crusaders. This study by applying the library method and making use of original sources deals with this government's attitudes towards and its political relations with the Seljuks, Fatimids and the Crusaders.

The Umayyad and Abbasid came to power and ruled at different times and under different conditions. Despite this, their political systems have many similarities. This article seeks to answer the question of why, despite these differences, the Umayyad and Abbasid have many similarities in terms of authority and political performance? This is important as it shows how the source of authority of two seemingly different caliphates can influence their political process and performance. The research method used is comparative using the theoretical framework of systemic analysis and threefold authority. The findings of the research show that the origin of the authority of the Umayyad and Abbasid governments was mainly due to the four common factors of traditional authority, which are: the traditional authority of Quraysh aristocracy and tribal supremacy, the use of personality cult, the divine nature of the government, and the emphasis on the status of the Caliph of God (KHALIFAT Allah).

This paper discusses the issue of the value of life, which is one of the spiritual crises of modern man. Along with examining the ideas of naturalists about the matter, by reviewing Allameh Tabatabaee’s al-Mizan entirely, the author has tried to extract his viewpoint, which is a supernaturalist and God-centered viewpoint. According to him, our life in this world will be null and absurd if we do not believe in God and in the life after death; however, it is possible to reach divine meeting (Liqa’allah) and the status of being God’s vicegerent (KHALIFAT Allah) through faith and good deeds. Considering the various degrees of value that can be assigned to people’s lives, this article claims that although according to Allame’s view the value of life is almost nothing when its liver does not believe in God, it is not so subjectively from that liver’s perspective. At the same time, integrating the supernatural viewpoint of Allameh and naturalist views leads us to the conclusion that even objectively, each of these two viewpoints seeks to propose the prerequisites for achieving a specific level of value of life.